NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0744n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 4, 2008 No. 07-2258 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
PAT RI CI A LAH AR , Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. O A K L A N D C O U N T Y , a c o r p o r a t e b o dy, Def endant- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : B AT CH EL DE R, C L AYand SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s.
PER CU RI AM . Patr ic ia L aha r ch a lle ng e s the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i n fa vo r o f O akla

nd County on he r Ag e Di sc ri min a tio n in Empl oy me nt Ac t (AD EA ) r e ta liatio n c la im and her para llel state-law r etaliation claim. Judge Clay believes L ahar has fa iled to demonstrate a g enuine issue of

fac t with respec t to both a materially adver se ac tion and causation, where as Judges Batchelder

and Sutton would not r eac h the issue of whether a materia lly adver se action occur red a nd thus do not joi n Part I I .B.1. B eca use we all find an a

bsence of ca

usation, we a ffirm.
I.
Since 1986, L ahar has worke d as a senior administrator for Oakland C o u n t y C hildren’s Vi ll age, a re sid e nc e fo r d e lin qu e nt youths , v ic tim s o f a bu se or ne g le c t and

tho se wi tho ut f

amil y members who c an ca

re f or them. I n J anuar

y 2003, L ahar , then 54, applied f or the va cant position of Mana g er, the highe st positi on at the fa cility

. J oanna Over all, a Children’s Villag e employ ee, the n roug hly 44, rec eived the position instead.07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 2 - I n re sp on se , L aha

r fi le d a n a g e -d isc ri min a tio n la

ws uit in s tate c ourt

a g a ins t O akla

nd County in April 2 0 0 3 . The state tr ial court g rante d the county ’s motion for summary dispositi on, and the court of a ppeals a ffirme d.
F ive mo nt hs a ft e r s he fi le d th a t la ws uit , L aha

r c la ims that O ve ra ll s ub je c te d h e r t o “unwa rra nted scrutiny

and discipline,” inc luding one oral a nd two written re primands. B r. at 7. She also claims that Over all reduc ed her job responsibiliti es and lowered her performa nce e valuations duri ngthe ne xt thr e e y e ars . In 2 00 5, L aha r f ile d a se c on d la ws uit a g a ins t O akla

nd County , this tim e in fede ral c ourt, alleg ing that t h e conduct amounted to unlawful re taliation under the A DEA, 29 U

. S

. C

. § 6 2 3 ( d ) , an d

u n d e r M i c h i g an ’ s E l l i o t t
- L a r s e nC i v i l R i g h t s A c t , M i c h

. C o mp . L. § 37 .2 70 1( a ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d the c ounty ’s mot ion fo r summa ry jud g me nt o n b oth

c la ims , concludingthat L ahar

failed a s a matter of law to establish an a dverse employ ment action ca

used by her pr otected c onduct. L a h a r v . O a k l a n d C o u n ty , No

. 0 5 -7 2 920, 2007 WL 2752350, at *11–12 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2007). L ahar appea ls.
II.

A.
The district cour

t, as an initial matter, did n o t er r wh en it ref used to consider

new f actua l
a lle g a tio ns and

le g a l argume nts that L ahar raised in an eleve nth-hour aff idavit. L ahar

submitt ed the aff idavit “without the permission of the Court, long afte r brief ing w as com p lete, and w ithout
a l l o w i n g D e f

e n d an ta d e qu a t e o p p o rtu n i t y t o r e s p o n d o r e v e nr e v i e w i tp r i o r

t o t h e [ s u m m ar

yjudgme nt] hear i ng .” Lahar , 2007 WL 2752350, at *2. As a r esult, the court de clined to consider new alleg ations and lega l theories that “could have been t imely raised in Plaintiff’s Response brief.” Id.07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 3 - The district court per

missibl y exercised its discre tion in declining to conside r L ahar ’s new contentions. See Miller v. Lorain County Bd. of Elections , 141 F.3d 252, 259 ( 6th Cir. 1998). L ahar

“ f a il e d to o f f e r a r e a s o n a b le e xp la n a ti o nf o r h e r ta r d ine ss,” L a har , 2007 WL 2752350, at *2, and trial-leve l liti g ation would come to a sta ndstill , or at least become exceeding ly ineffic ient, if parties could ra ise new a

rguments at that stag e in the ca se. B eca use a litig ant g ener ally forf eits an ar g ument that she fa ils to raise in a timely manner , see Hunter v. United States , 160 F.3d 1109, 1113 ( 6th Cir. 19 98 ), and be c a

us e L aha r did no t off

e r g oo d ca

us e fo r t he late fi lin g , th e dis tr ic t c ourt pe rm iss ibl y
re je c te d th e ne w l e g a l arg

ume nts ra ise d in

the a ff ida vit

. B.
L ahar next challeng es the district cour t’s conclu sion that her re taliation claims fail as a matter of law. Un de r t

he AD EA , it

is “ un lawf

ul f or an emp lo y er to d isc ri min ate a g a ins t any of his employ ees . . . be cause [t he employ ee] has . . . par ticipated in . . . litigation under this chapter.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(d). In the abse nce of “dire ct evidenc e” of

retal i at i o n , t he cla im procee ds under the McD onnell Douglas framework. The p la intiff initially must present “a

prima fa cie c ase of

reta liation by showing that (1) he eng ag ed in protec ted activity , (2) [ which] was known to the defendant, (3) [who] there afte r took an em p l o y m en t action adve rse to the plaintiff” (4) be cause of the prote cted activity

. Imwalle v. Re liance Me d. Prods., Inc. , 515 F.3d 531, 544 (6th Cir. 2008) . I f the e mploy ee makes this showing , the employer must offe r “e v i dence of a le g itimate, nondiscriminatory rea son for its ac tions,” and if the e mploy er doe s so, the burden shifts bac k to the plaintiff, who must show that “the leg itimate rea son offe red by the def endant wa s . . . a pre text desig ned to mask re taliation.” Id. Mic hig an law a

pp lie s this same a

pp ro a c h to c la ims fi le d und e r t he El lio tt- L ars e n Ci vil Rig hts Act. Se e Ga rg v . Mac om b Coun ty Cm ty . Me nta l H e alt h S e rv s. , 696 N.W.2d 646, 653, 656 (Mich. 2005).07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 4 - The district cour

t rejec ted L ah ar’s claims on two independe nt gr ounds: (1) that she f ailed to show that the county had taken a materia lly adver se action ag ainst her and (2) that the employ er’ s
c on du c t, e ve n if

it a mou nte d to an adv ers e act ion , w a s n ot c a us e d b y he r a g e -d isc ri min a tio n s uit

. Lahar , 2007 WL2752350, at *11–12. We g ive fre sh review to these deter

minations a

nd in doing so must “view the eviden ce an d drawall rea sonable infe renc es in favor of . . . the non-moving party”—her e L ahar

. Mick ey v . Zeidler Tool & Die Co. , 516 F.3d 516, 521 ( 6th Cir. 2008).

1.
An a c tio n is “ma ter ial ly

a dv e rs e ,” the Sup re me Court ha s e xpla ine d, wh e n it wo uld “dissu ad e[ ] a re asonable worke r fr om making or supporting a

char g e of discr imination.” See Bu rli ng ton N. &Sa nta FeRy . v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). “[N]ormally

petty slights, m inor annoy ance s, and si mple lack of g ood manner s will not create such deter renc e.” Id. The standa

rd is the “r eac tions of a reasonable employ ee,” not the plaintiff her self, in view of “the uncer

tainties and unfair discrepa ncies that c an plague a judicia l effor t to determine a plaintiff’ s unusual subjective fe eling s.” Id . at 68–69.
I n attempting to satisfy this require ment, L ahar points to lowere d perf ormanc e eva luations that followed the f

iling of h er state-cour

t lawsuit. Compare J A 618 (De cembe r 2002 eva luation, marke d “outstanding ” in all categ ories) with J A 623 (April 2004 evaluation with one “outstanding ,” fo ur “ a bo ve ave ra g e ,” on e “ ave ra g e ” and on e “ be low ave ra g e ” mark s) ; se e als o J A 624–25 (2005 and 2006 eva luations were simil ar to 2004 e valuation). Sh e al s o relies on thre e re primands for misconduct: (1) in September 200 3 for “ fail[ing] to invol ve [Overa ll] in a dec ision invol ving
ano the r de pa

rtme nt” a ft e r re pe a te d ins tr uc tio ns to do so , JA 13 1; (2 ) in F e br ua ry 20 05 fo r f

a ili ng“ to fo llo w the c ha in o f c omm and ,” fa ili ng“ to i nc lud e su pe rv iso ry sta ff in b us ine ss t

hat invo lve s th e ir staff” and failing “to inform [Overall]” befor e wor king unc ompensated ove rtime, J A 135; and (3)07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 5 - in May 2005 for e ng ag ing in insubordination b y ag ain workingunpaid over time without prior approva l.
We ha ve pre viously

held that lower ed eva luations “could . . . dissuade[] a reasona ble worke r from making. . . a cha

rg e of discr imination” if

they “sig nificantly

impact an e mploy ee’ s wag es or profe ssional advanc ement.” Halfacre v . Home D epot, USA, Inc

. , 221 F . App ’x 424, 43 2, 43 3 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation mar ks omitted) (alter ation in or igina l). And we c an assume that the same would be true for

repr imands, at least for

purposes of r es o lving this ca se. The pr oblem for L ahar is that she has failed to show that her lowe red e valuations or re primands af fec ted her wag es or prospe cts for advance ment. Be fore she filed her state-cour t lawsuit, L ahar

occupie d the sec ondhighe st rung on the Children’s Villag e employ ment ladd er , s h e was at the top step of her salary g ra de , a nd he r co mpe ns a tio n rank e d in the top 2. 2% of a ll c ounty

e mpl oy e e s. He r s tate -c ourt laws uit stemmed from her failure to g et the one job within Children’s Villag e that would have allowed he r to a dv anc e and

to m ake more mo ney . W hat e ve r e lse the c ounty did in a lle g e d r e sp on se to t

his lawsuit, it did not reduc e her pay or her title. Under these circ umstances, it is not surp ri sing that L aha r h a s f a ile d to sh owthat th e se re pr ima nd s and low e re d e va luatio ns fa ile d to re du c e , o r a re lik e ly to reduc e, her

compensation or further advance ment. She, indeed, of fer s no evidenc e to support any such possibilit y . L ahar next poi nts to decre ased job re sponsibili ties, all alleg edly prompted by the filing of her state-c ourt lawsuit and all occur ring during the t hree y ear s afte r she filed t he lawsuit. They include the following : Overa ll did not ask her to serve as a repre sentative for Children’s Villag e at va rious confe renc es; Over all preve nted her from conta cting t h e S tate’s lice nsing c onsultant without prior permission; Over all prohibited her from observing the entire employ ee arbitration proc ess in case s inv olv ingher su bo rdin a te s; s ome on e (p ro ba bly Ov e ra ll) e xclu de d h e r f ro m th e hir ingpr oc e ss;07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 6 - Over all require d her to seek permissi on befor e working unpaid overtime; Overall would not allow her “ to assess and a djust the progra mming withi n the intake se ction as [she] deem[ ed] nece ssary ,” to t ra ns fe r r e sid e nts be tw e e n buil din g s as she wi sh e d, to imp le me nt s pe c ia l ne e ds pr og ra mmi ng , to direc t clinical supervisors or to in v e s ti g ate staf

f wrong doing, JA 595; and Over all preve nted her from
me e tin g wi th s ta ff

me mbe rs outsi de the pr e se nc e of the ir su pe rv iso rs . All co n s i d er ed , t h ese slig hts do not rise to the level of a ma te ria lly adver se employ

ment
a c tio n be c a

us e the y wo uld no t have inf lue nc e d a re a so na

ble e mpl oy e e ’s de c isi on making proc e ss. No do ub t, a

c ha ng e in j ob dutie s— e ve n o ne wi th n o e ff e c t on pa y —ma y be a mate ri a lly

a dv e rs e action if the a ltered job duties would be c onsidered “less desirable ” by a rea sonable employ ee. See Bu rli ng ton N. , 548 U.S. at 70–71. Transf err ing an employ ee from for klift-operator duties to track labore r dut ies, for ex ample, amounted to a mater ially adver se ac tion in Bu rli ng ton Nor the rn be c a us e the evidenc e showe d that the forme r job was more “pre stig[ious] ” than the latter, bec ause the latter job was “by

all acc ounts more arduous and dirti er” and because there was “ considera ble evidenc e” that the forklift position “was obje ctively considere d a better

job and [that] the male e mploy ees
rese nted [the plaintiff] for o cc upying it.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). L ahar offe rs no simil ar e vidence . She was not re assig ned af ter she f iled the lawsui t , and she w as not asked to do
more wor k, or for that matter “ more a

rduous” wor

k, within the county
. I f any thing mate rial cha

ng ed afte r the law suit was filed, it is that the company asked less rathe r t han more of her. I n maintaining that she suffe red “ deep psycholog ical har m” from this series of

administrative slights, see Br . at 26
n. 13 , s he ans we rs the wr on g qu e sti on . T he is su e is n ot whe the r s he wa s su bje c tiv e ly hurt by thi s treatment; it i s whether

evidenc e indicate s that a re asonable employ ee in he r position woul d rea ct
s i m i l ar l y i f

t r e a t e d t h e s am e w ay.
Michae l v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. , 4 96 F .3 d 5 84 (6 th C ir . 200 7) , doe s n ot f ill thi s g a p in he r c a se . T he re , ma

na g e me nt o rd e re d a

n e mpl oy e e to t ake tw o d ay s o f p aid07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 7 - administrative leave , followed by a “90- day

perf ormanc e plan,” during which manag ers sc rutiniz ed her a ctions. Id. a t 59 1. Th e pla n inc lud e d w e e kly

re vie ws of

he r p ro g re ss, a s w e ll a s r e qu ir e me nts that she “notify [] manag ement if she would not be in the office , improv[e] her timely attendanc e at business meeting s, ref

rain[] from tre ating her staf f as pe rsonal assistants, and r ef ra i n [] from contac ting he r st aff outside of normal business hours.” Id. at 592. Over all’s minor restric tions on L aha r’ s a dmi nis tr a tiv e dutie s d id n ot r ise to t his le ve l.
Even if a ll of th es e actions—the a dminist rative slig hts, the repr imands, the lowere d
e v a l u a t i o n s

— d o n o tr i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f a n a d v e r s e - e mp l o ym e n ta c t i o nw h e nc o n s i d e r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y, L ahar mai ntains that they

suffice when c onsidered tog ether . The c ounty conce des that a c laimant may ag g reg ate c laims of mistreatment in decidingwhether reta liation occu

r r e d , a n d th u s f o r purposes of re solvingthi s c a se we wi ll a ssume sh e may . Re sp . B r. a t 45 ; see H oward v. Bd. of Educ. of Me mp his City

Sc hs

. , 70 F. App’ x 272, 283 (6th Cir. 2003) (“ Whil e many of these inc idents do not ri se to t he le ve l of

an a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt ac tio n, the inc ide nts , in tot o, mig ht a

rgua bly g ive ri se to
a c tio na ble re ta liator

y ha ra ssm e nt. ” ); W

ideman v. W

al-Mart Stores, Inc. , 1 41 F .3 d 1 45 3, 14 56 (1 1th Cir. 199 8 ) (c onsideringthe “totality of the a lleg ed re prisals” in dec iding whe ther a n adver seemploy ment action occ urre d).
Even whe n considere d in the ag g reg ate, howe ver, L ahar ’s claims still come up short. Kee p in mind that these actions did not occur all at o n ce ; t h ey were spre ad out over three y ear s. A “re asonable employ ee” is f ar less likely

to be deter

red by these kinds of a ctions when spre ad out over several y ea rs rathe r than c ondensed in the da y s or months following the pr otected a ctivity

. Cf. W ideman , 141 F.3d at 1455–56 (conc luding that numer ous small actions, all occur ring within a twomonth period, constituted materia lly adver se ac tion).

2.07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 8 - I n addition to this defe ct i n her claim, L ahar has fa iled to establish a mater ial dispute of fa ct that th e county

too k th e se a c tio ns be c au seof her state -cour t lawsuit. I n attempting to show oth e rw ise , s he argue s th at the te mpo ra l pro ximity be tw e e n he r state -c ourt laws uit and the se a dv e rs e
a c tio ns by

its e lf e sta bli sh e s c a

us a tio n. B ut t e mpo ra l pr oximi ty by its e lf ra re ly wi ll e sta bli sh sufficie nt evidenc e to cre ate a triable iss ue of fac t over c ausation. Stone v. City of Indianapolis Pub. Util. Div. , 28 1 F .3 d 64 0, 64 4 (7 th Cir . 2 00 2) (c oll e c tin g c a se s) ; see M icke y , 516 F.3d at 525. Even in the rar e case wher e it doe s suffice , the g ap in time betwee n the protec ted ac tivity and the a lleg ed reta liation must be brief. See M icke y , 516 F.3d at 525 (“I

n those limit ed number of ca ses—like the one at ba r—whe re a

n employ er f

ires an e mploy ee immediately a f t e r l e ar n i n g o f a p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t y,
we c an infer a causa l c onnection betwee n the two actions, even if Mickey had not pre sented other evidenc e of r etaliation.”) (empha sis added).
He re, th e fir st o f t

he a lle g e d r e ta liator

y a c tio ns a g a ins t L aha

r w a s th e or a l r e pr ima

nd in S e p t e mb e r

2 0 0 3 f o r “ f a i l [i n g ] t o i n v o l v e [O v e r a l l ] i n a d e c i s i o n i n v o l v i n g an o t h e r d e p art m e n t
. ” JA 131. Although the memorandum documenting the repr imand noted that Over all had “disc ussed the need f or [Lah ar ] t o inform [her] of non-routine issues as they arise” on sever al occ asions in May 2003, the ac tual re p rimand did not occur until S eptember

2003, shortly

afte r L ahar

“ag ain .

. . contac t[ ed] a

n Administrator of the Circuit Court, Family Division” without prior approva l. Id. Th is was five months after L ahar filed the law suit in April 2003. As the district c ourt corr ectly held, a five-month g ap in time does not by itself suffice to ge t to a jury on caus ati on. Se e Coo

pe r v . Ci ty of N. Olmstead , 795 F.2d 1265, 1272–73 ( 6th Cir. 1986) (holding that a f o u r - m o nth gap betwee n protec ted conduc t and alleg ed re taliation could not sustain a causat i o n infere nce, a bsent other evidenc e of r etaliation).07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 9 - I t is no answe r t o say that the county based the September 2003 re pr ima nd in p art on e ve nts that occur

red in May

of the sa m e y ea r. For

one, the e mploy er’ s restra int in not di sciplining the employ ee c loser in time to the protec ted conduct cre ates an infere nce of non-re taliation, not one of reta liation. An employ er be nt on reta liating ag ainst an employ ee is more li kely to act a s soon as the
e mpl oy e e g ive s it

the c ha nc e , n ot w a it unt il a

se c on d o r t

hir d p ro ble m ari se s— a s h a pp e ne d in thi s case. F or ano the r, dis c ipl ina

ry a c tio ns ba se d o n a ll b ut t he mos t e g re g iou s c on du c t g e ne ra lly wi ll tur n on inc ide nts tha

t oc c ur re d o ve r a pe ri od of tim e , n ot j us t on

the date on

wh ic h th e dis c ipl ine is imposed. I n Cooper , for instanc e, the plaintiff’ s termination was pre cede d by a number of citations for poor perf ormanc e, incl uding two w ithin a month of the protecte d conduct, but the c ourt
ne ve rt he le ss co ns ide re d the la

ps e in time be tw e e n the pr ote c te d co nd uc t a nd the a dv e rs e a c tio n to be t h e en t i re four months. 795 F.2d at 1266–67, 1272–73. I t bear s adding that L ahar does not maintain that the May

events we re the mselves an a dverse employ ment action or e ven a c omponent of one.
L aha r a dd s th a t mor e tha

n te mpo ra l pr oximi ty su

pp or ts he r c a us a tio n a rgume nt, po int ingto alleg ed “dispa

rate treatment” betwe en her and other employ ees. B r. at 33. She notes that a nother
su pe rv iso r, Pe te r B a lze ri ni, wa s n ot e xclu de d f ro m th e hir ing pr oc e ss, pr e ve nte d fr om me e tin g wi th the State licensingconsultant or denie d the authority to transfe r re sidents. But bec ause L ahar failed to present this theory

of ca usat i o n t o the district court in her summary -judg ment paper s, she has forf eited it, En e rte c h E le c ., In c . v . M ah on ing Cou nty Com m’rs , 85 F.3d 257, 261 ( 6th Cir. 1 9 9 6 ), as the district cour

t properly found, Lahar , 2007 WL 2752350 , at * 2 (f i n d ing that arguments not made in initial summary

judgme nt response w ere forf eited).
L aha r f ur the r ar g ue s that, be c a

us e Ov e ra ll co mpl a ine d ab out her fr om time to t ime , th a t it se lf establishes ca

usation. But her e, too, she fa iled to raise this theory below and so ha s forfe ited it.07-2258

Lah ar v . O ak lan d Co un ty

- 10 - III

. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.